C O M M O N O R D E R

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by way of common order.

2. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.52 of 2000, dated

12.07.2005 and in I.A.No.253 of 2008, dated 19.08.2011.

3. The case of the petitioner Management is that the second respondent was working as Clerk and also acting as in-charge Cashier in the petitioner Co-operative Bank Limited. During the service of the second respondent, it was found that he along with the then Secretary, Jewel Appraiser and Clerk, colluded and indulged in various misdeeds viz., fraud, misappropriation and breach of trust. For the said lapses, the petitioner Management issued a charge memo against the petitioner and conducted a domestic enquiry, after affording opportunity to the second respondent, dismissed the second respondent from service, on 22.09.1998. Simultaneously, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the second respondent. Further, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the second respondent and the criminal cases are pending against him before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal dated 22.09.1998, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.52 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The Labour Court passed an ex- parte award on 12.07.2005. Taking advantage of the ex-parte order, the second respondent filed C.P. No.36 of 2010 before the first respondent, claiming a sum of Rs.25,73,300/-. Thereafter, in order to safeguard the interest of the Co-operative Bank, the petitioner filed a restoration petition before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli with a petition to condone the delay of 972 days. The said Interlocutory Application was numbered as I.A.No.253 of 2008 in I.D.No.52 of 2000 and the Labour Court dismissed the condone delay petition in I.A.No.253 of 2008, on the ground that the delay of 972 days is not condonable and the Labour Court has no power to entertain the petition. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been field.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that it does not have power to recall the order, which has been published, is wholly unsustainable, on the ground that an order passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice is an order in nullity and is non est in law. An exparte order was passed against the petitioner and on coming to know, the petitioner has filed the petition to recall the said order with a petition to condone the delay. The matter has not been appreciated in proper perspective by the Labour Court and, therefore, the said order deserves to be set aside.

5. On the above contentions, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, who vehemently submitted that the petitioner is bound to explain each and every day's delay and without there being proper explanation for the delay, the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the petition and, therefore, no interference is called for with the order passed by the Court below.

6. This Court paid its consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record as also the order passed by the Labour Court.

7. The Labour Court has dismissed I.A.No.253 of 2008, on the ground that once the award is published in the Government Gazette, the Labour Court has no power to recall the order.

8. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court has passed an order, exparte against the petitioner. It is therefore evident that the petitioner was not heard when the order was passed. It is to be pointed out that it is the well settled position of law through various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that no finality attaches itself to an ex-parte award and if any application is f